What the fuck?
Well, I think we all know what we think about Burn After Reading, the latest from the Coen Brothers, don't we? We've read the reviews, and the reviews sing out in unison: it's a disappointing, thinly-conceived piece of comedic fluff seemingly made as a balm after the heavyweight majesty of last year's Oscar-winning No Country For Old Men. Right? Wrong.I saw it yesterday - there were quite a few people in the cinema, too, considering this was an afternoon showing - and it's an entertaining, fast-moving, funny Hitchcock parody, full of great performances and killer lines, most of them involving the word "fuck", and it does its job in a swift 96 minutes, then gets out. I laughed out loud a number of times. They've made some substandard stuff in the name of "screwball", most notably Intolerable Cruelty, starring my boyfriend George Clooney, but the Coens are so prolific, you can never write them off, not even after the disgrace that was their remake of The Ladykillers (yeah, that was really crying out to be transposed to Mississippi in the modern day).
Burn After Reading is a fairly plain, Washington DC-set, post-Cold War intelligence thriller in which innocent and not-so-innocent people get sucked into a whirling, escalating blackmail plot that leads to murder and connects everything and everybody to everything and everybody else. Clooney plays a bit of a dork; so does Brad Pitt - neither is reason enough to instantly like the film (handsome actors will play the clown for the Coens: of course they will) - the revelation is John Malkovitch, whose character Osbourne Cox, a fired and cuckolded CIA analyst writing his memoirs while drunk, is so brilliantly drawn, he defies dismissal of the film as fluff. And Frances McDormand is as real as she was in Fargo, if less obviously likeable than Marge, playing a lovesick but shallow surgery-hungry middle-aged singleton from Hardbodies gym. Add to that already fine cast Richard Jenkins as her sad suitor, and - the film's secret weapons - JK Simmons and David Rasche as clueless CIA high-ups, and you've got an unmissable film. (Only Tilda Swinton disappointed me - too pantomime.)
Anyway, seeing it left me wondering why the critics turned on it, as one. Is it just the Auto-Backlash Response? ("Hmmm, we used up all our praise on No Country, let's show those Coens we're not so easily bought off!") If so, take all the ho-hum reviews, burn after reading, and see the film. Unless you're not a fan of Hitchcock. Or the Coens.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 4:02 PM
20 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
20 Comments:
I still love your boyfriend Richard Herrin's comment about it - "Burn after reading ...which I hoped would be about a fire on the M4"
There seems to be a universal decision taken by someone somewhere (Steve Jobs probably, saying how he can decide whether we read or not) about whether "we" like or don't like something. Some pretty high profile reviewers simply churn out exactly the same as everyone else says.
It's galling, pointless, somewhat confusing and really rather unhelpful, which is why genuine opinions that don't follow the flock are far more valuable.
Thoroughly enjoyed it, Andrew, but I couldn't shake off the feeling it was unfinished.
Oh yes. A rather slow opening reel for my money, but lots of laughs and a few real shocks - and Malkovich is ace (after the film, I pleased myself by saying "mem-wahz" in an Osbourne Cox style quite a lot). And my inner thirteen-year-old was thrilled to see Sledge Hammer on the big screen - barely changed from his eighties heyday.
It's not that there's anything wrong with Burn After Reading, it's merely that they've already made this film about four times before (perhaps that was why No Country was such a revelation - even Fargo wasn't really sufficient preparation?)
And it doesn't matter how good Clooney and Pitt are (and they are good), they are most of the reason the film doesn't really work - unless you buy into the "everyone is an idiot" idea, the central conceit simply falls flat (well, it did for me.)
I've decided that the only explanation for the bizarre switchback ride that is their career is that the "Coen Brothers" is just a cover name for a whole panoply of directors, each with an utterly incompatible cinematic style...
-- David
David, your comments hold much water, though I personally disagree that everyone is an idiot. Surely it would take idiots to try and blackmail someone from the CIA? (And to take it to the Russians!) And Clooney's idiot is a sweet idiot. The CIA guys-behind-desks are venal, heartless idiots. And Clooney's wife isn't an idiot. And nor is Tilda Swinton. And there are idiots in No Country, but they tend to be behind desks. (By the way, I'm not saying Burn After Reading is up there with No Country or Fargo or The Man Wasn't There, which I also love, but it's not a inconsequential as the consensus would have us believe. And, as you say, Dan and Chris, it has its problems but it's not half bad.)
The Man Who Wasn't There, clearly.
Couldn't you have asterixed out some letters for the title of this blog entry?
I'm not a prude but somehow I think it would have just seemed slightly more respectable.
Maybe you could have used the 'WTF!'
I thought it wasn't half bad, either.
It was certainly an enjoyable 90 minutes, and the ending showed that they are aware that it's supposed to be *about* anything (as some people have criticised it for).
That said, George Clooney's voice has become so low that I couldn't actually tell what he was saying in places.
It amused me to think of it as being the Hollywood-ised remake of One Foot In The Grave with John Malkovitch as Victor Meldrew.
Rich
Dooby, I apologise if the word "fuck" offends you. I am merely quoting from the film, in which "What the fuck?" is a repeated phrase. I'm kind of assuming that people are grown-up and can handle the occasional fuck-word.
In context.
I wish I had been reading this blog when you reviewed No Country For Old Men so I have could have bemoaned my wasted time and money at an appropriate juncture.
Alex B
MD -
It's galling, pointless, somewhat confusing and really rather unhelpful, which is why genuine opinions that don't follow the flock are far more valuable.
I didn't like No Country For Old Men anywhere near as much as Fargo, Raising Arizona, Hudsucker Proxy... in fact most of their other stuff.
In fact, I found it took itself far too seriously.
Not sure how valuable that opinion is to you, but it's yours for free.
Swineshead
A film based on a Cormac McCarthy novel that takes itself seriously, Swineshead? How could they have left out all the laughs? I'm firmly with the flock on No Country. It looked stunning - my God there were some beautifully framed shots in there - and it seemed to be a really affectionate nod to the Old West and to Old Westerns.
It reminded me most of Blood Simple, which can't be bad. Once you realise it's about Sheriff Bell and not Anton Chigurh at all, it all falls into place.
And it confirmed Josh Brolin as an actor to make a date with, whatever he's in. His was the only supporting part in American Gangster (aka The Denzel and Russell Show) that had any impact. And tomorrow, I'm seeing him as George W Bush. I can't wait!
Personally I was deeply disappointed by the film (not because that seems to be the critical concensus by the way) because it could have been wonderful - as wonderful as the opening and closing scenes. Instead, I thought it reverted to lazy shock tactics and some shocking chewing of the scenery to get laughs. John Malkovitch may have the capacity to rise above screwball but Pitt and Clooney sure as hell don't.
Maybe I shouldn't have watched Fargo the day before, getting my hopes up.
Can't deny it looked fantastic. But Cormac McCarthy leaves me cold. I read blood Meridian and stylistically it's superb, but cold as ice and without humanity all you have is good looking set pieces (or beautifully-written nothingness/violence).
I admit it's probably worth a second viewing, these things often are - but first time round it wasn't all that.
If I want a film about coldness in the human heart, I'll go for something like Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Maybe I am ill.
I've admired Brolin since The Goonies. Christ, he was good in that.
As for a new Oliver Stone film - I cut my ties after the risible Natural Born Killers.
Swiners
I saw it yesterday and I enjoyed it, and I thought that Brad Pitt was really good in it. I didn't like it enough to buy it when it comes out though, and I've got most of their other films, so that probably says something.
Zoe
I actually liked Intolerable Cruelty. I felt it suffered from the mass critic reaction "we don't like this one".
However The Ladykillers was dreadful.
uh hello..its a screwball comedy...its meant to be absurd.
I and the rest of the cinema were thoroughly entertained and after all isn't that the whole point of cinema?
Maybe the criticism is natural when the Coen's set the bar so high.
I enjoyed this film. I've enjoyed every Coen bros. film however, including Intolerable Cruelty and Ladykillers. Partly because you walk into the cinema not knowing what you're going to get. (I had an idea with No Country For Old Men, having read the book). They don't conform to anything except their own agenda, they're out there, doing whatever it is they're doing next for all us sinners, and I take comfort from that.
Post a Comment
<< Home